Could someone explain to me why B, C & D are not L@EC? What other set have those cards joined after being illegally seen for it to be no longer L@EC?
EDIT: ah, Théo mentions “The only issue today is that LEC only applies to cards from library”
Where does it say that? I just can't find that.

Originally posted by David Poon:

First,

Toby Hazes
Similar to picking up the other player's hand for whatever reason (No Emrakuls involved).

It's a sad day to see “Mindslaver” get replaced by “Emrakul” in colloquial language. RIP Mindslaver.

1. If only Mindslaver would Rest in Peace. Wizards has admitted it was a design mistake for it to not exile itself rather than just sacrifice on activation and I wholeheartedly agree. Enough reason to be happy it gets replaced by the much better designed Emrakul 13.

2. Not colloquial actually. Example D used Emrakul.

Edited Toby Hazes (Dec. 14, 2016 01:24:16 AM)

Originally posted by David Poon:

Surprisingly, there's nothing in the definition of HCE that states the card(s) must move to a different set.

Scott, knowing that we can't apply HCE—do you think it would be better to have the fix I proposed available in the future? If not, why? (I could see reasons ranging from the scenario being too corner-casey to justify making a change, or some similar situation causing bad things to happen with the fix… what are your thoughts?)

While I agree with you, you cannot find either a case in Additional Remedy that fits this situation.

The definition of HCE states clearly that the card should be known by one player before and after the error.

Philosophically, this case fits way better intp LEC where you can find very similar things, where you assume that the general case of no one knows a card from library and someone gets a glimpse of it. The only issue today is that LEC only applies to cards from library, otherwise the spirit of the infraction fits. However, the fix should be adapted too if you are in cases B/C/D.

If not, then the definition of HCE should be modified, but I think it is worse.

PS : and I would probably say it might be a GRV before going into HCE

Edited Théo CHENG (Dec. 13, 2016 07:15:24 PM)

Originally posted by Àre Maturana:

C: The same situation as B, but earlier this game I had the chance to go through my library (maybe with a fetchland or with Attune with Aether). While going through it, I noticed the only planeswalker I play, Arlinn Kord, is missing. I deduce it is under the Bomat.

I don't understand why this is relevant.

1) If you look at a face down pile that you are not allowed to look at, that's LEC.

2) If you use some mechanism other than looking at the cards directly to deduce the contents of a hidden zone, you are allowed to do that (providing the mechanism you use is also within the rules).

If the question is regarding the fix, I don't think there is a good applicable fix for this situation. I don't like the default fix (shuffle the known card(s) into the library, then repeat the action if applicable to replenish the set to the correct number of cards) here if it has been more than a turn cycle, because it changes the constitution of the deck across a draw phase. I would just issue LEC with no fix; the player knows what the card is, which they shouldn't, but that's less bad than the alternative, which is a broken game state.

That said, in this particular case, I would keep in mind the player's reaction. If I give this ruling, and then the player starts arguing with me about it, it is possible they did it intentionally: what they did was verify the unknown card legally by deducing it by looking through their deck (which is allowed), and then, once they determined it was a card they wanted, they attempted to do some sort of thing with LEC expecting I would replace the card and then the Arlinn Kord would be in their deck to draw later, which is UC - Cheating (intentionally looking at the card to get an infraction which would adjust the game state in their favor, rather than looking at the card by accident, which is LEC).

EDIT: Uncle Scott appears to believe that it's GRV, not LEC. However, I just read over the text of LEC and, like Toby above, I'm unable to determine what about this scenario causes it to not be LEC. A claim seems to have been made that LEC only applies to the library, but the current text of LEC says nothing about that (although it's possible my IPG is out of date; for reference, the IPG I'm using is from Judge Core App)

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 14, 2016 03:26:37 PM)

Lyle,

It appears that even though it is not written that this only applies to the deck, the description and the remedy only speaks about cards in the library and nothing else.

Whether LEC should apply or not only to library is something, it appears anyway today that LEC as it is written does not cover explicitly something else than cards from library (the core app version is indeed up to date).